MacInnis and Doug Wilson Hate Composite Sticks

[Hank 0]

Gretzky thinks so too:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/7442238

I couldn't agree more with this article.

[irishtemper14+25 11]

i have a composite stick, and the only thing i liked is how light it is...but it was too weak, i love my wooden sticks

[theman19 47]

agree 110%

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

To me, this is the most cogent point in the article:

But unfortunately, as well all know, the foresight of the NHL's movers and shakers rarely extends past where to go for dinner.

I'd be all for going back to wood sticks, just so I wouldn't scream my head off when a Wings player has a wide open net and I watch the blade of their stick go flying off as they try and slap it in.

The thing is, if it really made such a big difference in puck control and catching passes, wouldn't more players even at the NHL level be using them?

I wonder if it's because composites have been around long enough now that these guys never used wood sticks at the elite levels.

[puckloo39 5,686]

which type of stick is the one which constantly breaks? Wood? or Composite? I've never seen so many broken sticks as in the last couple of years.

Remember the penalty Lilja got (yeah, yeah, I know...) for "breaking" another player's stick this season - I think it was the Anaheim game that was so penalty heavy. He didn't even touch the other player's stick and it fell apart.

Unless other players are so afraid of Lils that they are squeezing the sticks hard enough that they shatter, I tend to think something else is going on.

[egroen 384]

Didn't Chelios move to a composite last year and rant and rave about how great they were?

I like and respect old school as much as anyone, but I do not think there are too many players today using composite sticks out of ignorance, when the wooden sticks are supposedly so much better.

These are professional athletes... I have a feeling they know their game well enough to know which stick is better for them. Apparently, for most of them, composite sticks are superior.

[datsyukonethree 0]

I don't get it. There wasn't a single piece of statistical evidence or a single argument from the composite camp in the entire article. Composites are less accurate? They make it harder to receive a pass? Where'd he get that from?

I personally prefer composites for the lighter weight, but I would be all for the NHL banning them if they decided to do so, if nothing else than to reduce the number of broken sticks per game.

I just don't understand how this article is in any way valuable. Thanks for posting it, since it'll give us a nice discussion, but honestly the article is crap journalism.

[arnoldbuck 0]

Personally I like compostie sticks. When I hold a wooden stick these days, it feels like a million pounds.

As far as breaking ... I will search for a link (to back this up), but I have read, and heard on multiple occassions that wood sticks broke every bit as much as composites. However, there was a difference in break style. Composties shatter in a glorious display for all the world to see, where as wooden stick fractured, generally length-wise. The wood, while broken, and the stick useless, would still hold together. Basically this results in people being more aware when composites break.

I'll look and see what I can find. Though, if you think about it, it makes sense.

[Winged Scooter 0]

I have never used anything but a wooden stick, so I can't really make a fair comparison. ( However even if I used a composite, I score a goal about as often as Haley's Comet comes around so it still wouldn't be a fair comparison ! ).

However, I've played with many guys who swear they are great!

[Kutcher 0]

I for one love them. Denfinate shooting advantages over wooden sticks. I don't think they should be banned and think alot of players would be really pissed if they were. They should be allowed to use whatever makes them feel comfortable.

[edicius 3,269]

I think I heard on a Wings telecast that no more than 3% of the players in the league are using wood sticks.

Which means 97% of the players in the league are using the evil composites.

[union drone 0]

One question: if wooden sticks are so much better than composite ones, why is there so much demand for composite sticks?

[up2here 41]

Imagine Macinnis' shot with a composite stick? Patrick Roy would have died in '86.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Gretzky thinks so too:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/7442238

I couldn't agree more with this article.

Ahh yes, as one who has never nor will ever use anything but a wood stick, its nice to see some big names in agreement with my greatness!

Anybody remember that flame war months ago about comp sticks? Man, that was a great thread.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

My friend got a sherwood wood stick last week and it lasted 2 shots before snapping in half

[brutus 0]

I don't get it. There wasn't a single piece of statistical evidence or a single argument from the composite camp in the entire article. Composites are less accurate? They make it harder to receive a pass? Where'd he get that from?

I personally prefer composites for the lighter weight, but I would be all for the NHL banning them if they decided to do so, if nothing else than to reduce the number of broken sticks per game.

I just don't understand how this article is in any way valuable. Thanks for posting it, since it'll give us a nice discussion, but honestly the article is crap journalism.

DING DING DING!! nice to see someone really utilizing the critical thinking we all should have learned in high schooll rather than hopping on a bandwagon of bye-gone sentiment.

As others have noted and I will agree; I find it VERY hard to believe that, given the statisticallly significant number of players chosing composite over wood, wooden sticks are superior in any way, except possibly durability...and as far as that goes I have only heard anecdotal evidence, no statistical proof, that they break more frequently...maybe I am missing a piece of research but I have never seen it.

Personally I do not notice the "difference" in receiving a pass anymore...perhaps a little years ago when I switched to composite, but now I have no problem nor do I believe that the pros would continue to use a piece of equipment if it actually made it HARDER to perform....that is aside from a very shallow initial learning curve.

brutus

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

DING DING DING!! nice to see someone really utilizing the critical thinking we all should have learned in high schooll rather than hopping on a bandwagon of bye-gone sentiment.

As others have noted and I will agree; I find it VERY hard to believe that, given the statisticallly significant number of players chosing composite over wood, wooden sticks are superior in any way, except possibly durability...and as far as that goes I have only heard anecdotal evidence, no statistical proof, that they break more frequently...maybe I am missing a piece of research but I have never seen it.

Personally I do not notice the "difference" in receiving a pass anymore...perhaps a little years ago when I switched to composite, but now I have no problem nor do I believe that the pros would continue to use a piece of equipment if it actually made it HARDER to perform....that is aside from a very shallow initial learning curve.

brutus

Well, there's not stat to use as nobody has ever studied it but MANY, MANY players, including great such as Mario Lemieux have gone on record saying its much more difficult to receive a pass than it used to be with wooden sticks. And all you need to do is watch any game and count the number of times a guy tries to take a pass and the puck just ricochets off of the blade. You don't need statistical data to see that, it happens all the time.

As for me, the day when one of these fancy sticks can make me shoot 10 times harder, with 10 times the accuracy, 10 times the durability and produce 10 times the amount of goals, then i'll pay 10 times the amount of money for one.

[redmathew 0]

if i had the money i would use wood sticks. Thats right if i had the money. Wood sticks dont last as long as composite, but woods sticks dont 'explode' the blade just gets worn down, and is noticable so it wont affect play(just get a new one before it breaks). now one piece sticks are not that great, ive snapped a few in half. but 2 piece sticks are alot stronger i feel. But then again, i am a D-man, so thats my point of view.

[Guest RedWingsFever]

Who knows. Maybe this will start the ball rolling with the NHL making a change here. Cause something should be done.

[al48 1]

I'm still surprised that more defensive defensemen don't use wood sticks strictly for the punishing factor. Taking a wood stick to the back of the leg hurts a hell of a lot more.

[eva unit zero 271]

I have a two-piece graphite, as well as some wood sticks from brands such as Hespeler, Lousiville, and Sher-wood.

I can't speak to how one-piece composites are, but I know with my graphite stick (purchased for 20 bucks at Play It Again Sports, tyvm) does not allow for the same kind of precise 'feel' of the puck, which leads to sloppy stickhandling and inaccurate shooting when compared to how I perform with the wood stick. As my slap shot is probably the weakest part of my game, having some extra power would be nice. Unfortunately, my slapper is weak due to poor technique and I haven't experienced much difference in power between the two types of stick.

[omnipotent_hudler 0]

So I don't get it. A few retired players prefer wooden sticks, therefore the NHL should ban them?

I mean, maybe you prefer wooden sticks... that's cool. But why should any player in the NHL not be able to choose to use a composite?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

So I don't get it. A few retired players prefer wooden sticks, therefore the NHL should ban them?

I mean, maybe you prefer wooden sticks... that's cool. But why should any player in the NHL not be able to choose to use a composite?

The whole point of the article apparently zipped right over your head like a puck zipping over the top of the goal from a composite stick.

The article was brought up because the ex players and coaches are saying they feel scoring is down and it is due partly because of the composites. So far, the only thing they have proven to do is make people shoot harder. They don't seem to improve accuracy, they make stickhandling harder and they make receiving a pass harder. Hence, when people can't control the puck as easily and pucks are bouncing off people's blades and they can't shoot the damn things accurately, less goals scored. SAVVY? About the only thing these sticks do is make the average shooter able to hit the 90+ mark on the radar gun.

I'm still surprised that more defensive defensemen don't use wood sticks strictly for the punishing factor. Taking a wood stick to the back of the leg hurts a hell of a lot more.

Defensive defenseman was exactly what I was my entire playing career. And yes, I loved the heft of a wood stick because it did hurt like hell when you whacked somebody with it and it also gave me considerable joy everytime I chopped some guy's composite to see it snap in half.

Plus, when you get pissed off and snap the blade off your wood stick, you go spend 25 bucks and get another one. Hell, I probably have 2 dozen good, usable wood sticks sitting in my garage (I stopped playing last year) and combined they didn't cost me what two of these fancy ass new sticks would. I'm betting my 24 wood sticks would outlast any 2 composites by a huge margin.

I agree that no "official study" is needed to confirm things either way...Playing the game myself, & having experience with wood/aluminum shaft with wood blade/composites - I found that composites def make it more challenging to receive passes, & it makes puckhandling more challenging as well when compared to the woods - however my wrist shots improved quite a bit with the composites...Either way it's up to the individual as to which route they go; I've always preferred wood

And that is why, like myself, you are a God among men!

Edited November 15, 2007 by GordieSid&Ted

[Inultus 12]

That's a good idea to use a composite shaft and wooden blade. I might try that next time I buy.

I used wood initially but I kept breaking sticks so often I gave composite a try and I found one on clearance for $60. It lasted just fine and I felt it was the best stick I'd used until a 250 pound dude crashed directly into me and broke the stick in half. That stick was a 95 flex if I remember correctly and that was perfect for me (it was a Easton Gaborik I think). I'm 220 pounds and 6' and the flex was great.

I'm now using an Easton Sakic and the flex is 65, which is quite a bit too little for me, but we'll see how long the stick lasts. Haven't had any problems yet this season and I slashed a dude (he had a wood stick) so hard last night that I knocked his stick right out of his hands.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Defensive defenseman= can't skate, can't contribute offensively.

Exactly what experience do you have that justifies your "opinions" on composites? If you were a stay at home defenseman and rarely used composites, what are you the authority on what they can and cannot do?

Obviously someone that plays defense and rarely shoots, wood would probably be your best bet. But, if thats your game then theres nothing that leads me to believe that you have experienced using composites enough while playing to give your opinion.

A composite shaft with a wooden blade is the best combo. Its better then a wooden stick and it has more durability then a one piece.

And yes, composite blades tend to reduce the feel of the puck. Whats the solution? A wooden blade. If you think accuracy decreases with composite then you're insane.

Every wood stick that I have used lost its "pop" after two games. Not to mention, if you don't wax a wooden blade, it'll start cracking and the ice/water will destroy it.

$100 for a top of the line shaft + $15 wooden replacement blade. Best of both worlds.

Yes, as a stay at home dman I rarely ever scored. Most of my time was spent blocking shots and fighting. Sounds unspectacular but I captained every team I was ever on right up until college. And as you said in the Lecavalier thread, scoring isn't everything.

What I know of composites is from playing with people who use them. I have not played competitive hockey with anyone using a wood stick for the past 6+ years. That's right, every team i've been on, I have been the only guy using a wood stick.

So why is my opinion an expert opinion? It's not. As I stated, I've heard it from some of the greatest players in the game. Wilson and MacInnis are just the latest in a long line of names I've seen quoted ragging on Composite sticks. I don't need to be an expert in using them when Mario Lemieux tells me what I need to know about them. That's good enough for me. Oh yeah, that and I can't recall a single NHL game i've watched in 3 years where somebody's composite didn't split in 2 during a shot attempt.

As for using a wood blade combo. That's probably something I could go along with. But still, at a cost of 4-5 wooden sticks just for one of those? I don't see the difference.

From my perspective, any stick could break at any moment. I take 3 to every game (I used to anyway). If I were to go your route with a combo, i'd still have to invest 300+ bucks to feel adequately covered for what might transpire during a game.

Whether people want to use them or not is of no concern to me. I don't begrudge anyone who feels comfortable with a 2 piece or composite. All i'm saying is that the only empirical evidence that has ever been presented in favor of non-wood sticks is they help you shoot harder. There's no other evidence that they are better for accuracy, puck handling, etc.....even 2 pc sticks.

And, that's why the article was written. Coaches and HOF players are saying that the scoring is down and its due in part to these sticks. It's a completely plausible explanation as anyone watches games can see how many pucks go wide, go high, bounce off of blades on pass attempts, bounce off of sticks as guys are carrying the puck.

All these sticks do is make an inaccurate shot blow past the goal at a higher rate of speed. Not worth the $ IMO.

That's a good idea to use a composite shaft and wooden blade. I might try that next time I buy.

I used wood initially but I kept breaking sticks so often I gave composite a try and I found one on clearance for $60. It lasted just fine and I felt it was the best stick I'd used until a 250 pound dude crashed directly into me and broke the stick in half. That stick was a 95 flex if I remember correctly and that was perfect for me (it was a Easton Gaborik I think). I'm 220 pounds and 6' and the flex was great.

I'm now using an Easton Sakic and the flex is 65, which is quite a bit too little for me, but we'll see how long the stick lasts. Haven't had any problems yet this season and I slashed a dude (he had a wood stick) so hard last night that I knocked his stick right out of his hands.

How were you breaking your wood sticks? I've always been curious to hear this from people who have had problems with broken wood sticks.

Did the shafts split or did the blade snap or did the bottom of the blade just get gnarled up? How did you break most of them.

I've never had a problem with wooden sticks in 20+ years of playing.

I don't know how many sticks i've broken but i'd bet I broke more sticks slashing them at a post or slamming the blades down on the bench when i'm pissed off than I ever did playing.